PDF Format:

CC03272017.pdfCC03272017.pdf

CITY OF SHAWNEE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
March 27, 2017
7:00 P.M.

Michelle Distler – Mayor

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember NeighborCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember JenkinsDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember KemmlingAssistant City Manager Sunderman
Councilmember VaughtCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember MeyerCity Attorney Rainey
Councilmember SandiferFinance Director Rogers
Councilmember KenigPlanning Director Chaffee
Public Works Director Whitacre
Councilmembers AbsentDevelopment Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Councilmember PflummIT Director Bunting
Police Chief Moser
Police Captain Brim
Communications Manager Breithaupt
Deputy Fire Chief Scarpa
Assistant Public Works Director Gard
Deputy Parks and Recreation Dir. Lecuru
Business Liaison Holtwick
Transportation Manager Manning
Sr. Project Engineer Schnettgoecke
Sr. Project Engineer Moeller-Krass
Sr. Project Engineer Lindstrom
Police Sgt. Walsh
Master Police Officer-Traffic Saylor
SEDC Business Dev. Director Bowen

(Shawnee City Council Meeting Called to Order at 7:00 p.m.)
A. ROLL CALL

MAYOR DISTLER: Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Shawnee City Council. I would ask that you please silence your electronic devices at this time.

I am Mayor Michelle Distler and I will be chairing this meeting. I will do a roll call at this time. Councilmember Neighbor.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Pflumm is absent. Councilmember Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Sandifer.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Councilmember Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Present.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE

MAYOR DISTLER: Please stand and join us for the the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of silence.

(Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence)

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Before we begin our agenda, I'd like to explain our procedures for public input. During the meeting I will offer the opportunity for public input. If you would like to speak to the Council at any of those times, please come forward to the microphone. I will ask you to state your name and address for the record and then you may offer your comments. So that members of the audience can hear your comments, I would ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes and no person may speak more than twice to any one agenda item. After you are finished, please sign the form on the podium to ensure we have an accurate record of your name and address. In addition, while we won't do a roll call vote on every vote, I will state Councilmembers' names who vote in minority so that our listening audience will have a clear and accurate record of the vote.

C. CONSENT AGENDA
MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Does anyone have an item they would like to remove from the Consent Agenda? Seeing none, I will accept a motion on the Consent Agenda.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried 7-0.]
D. MAYOR’S ITEMS

1. PRESENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY TRAFFIC SAFETY AWARD FROM AAA.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is Mayor's Items and we have a presentation to the Community Traffic Safety Award from AAA. So, I’d like to ask Bob Hamilton, the KDOT Law Enforcement liaison to come forward, along with Chief Moser and the Traffic Unit of the Shawnee Police Department for the presentation of the AAA Gold Award for 2016.

MR. HAMILTON: Madam Mayor, City Council, I appreciate you allowing me to be here this evening to present your Police Department with this award. There is four law enforcement liaisons across the state of Kansas. And I’m the liaison for the northeast part of the state. We travel the state and watch -- and look for agencies that are doing real well with their traffic safety programs. And then we talk to them and ask them to put in the application for the award. And this award is presented through AAA Insurance.

So, this year Shawnee is receiving their, I can’t remember if it’s their sixth or seventh award. Do you know? Sixth. Okay. Fifth year in a row to receive the gold award. So, we’re going to have to talk, Steve, and get you up one more to the platinum for next year. It’s very prestigious for a department to win one of these awards because we have over 300 law enforcement agencies across the state of Kansas. And your agency is one of only 32 that’s winning this award and only one of 25 police departments that’s winning an award. Some of the things that they have done to win this is, is for having a community-based traffic safety committee that meets regularly and identifies traffic safety problems and formulates solutions; for having a departmental policy requiring the use of seatbelts. In education, they're recognized this year for their High School Smart Choices Programs and car seat usage and installation program, for their enforcement work in crime and traffic safety, and for being a founding agency of that program. Their impaired driver deterrence program, their Click-it-or-Ticket, You Drink, You Drive, You Lose, and the Thanksgiving Safe Arrival and DUI check lanes that they do. They’re also recognized for their close coordination with the Traffic Engineering Department about speed and signage issues.

Like I said, they’re receiving their fifth in a row gold award. And some of the examples of their efforts that have meant a lot to the City of Shawnee is adult seatbelt use has risen steadily from 87 percent in 2013 to 92 percent in 2014. Teen belt use has done the same from 85 percent to 92 percent over the same period. This is our highest raising percentage of young people that we have across Kansas compared to the adults. Child passenger seat use has risen steadily from 82 to 95 percent.
So, at this time, Madam Mayor, City Council, I’d like to present Chief Moser and the Shawnee Police Department with their gold award.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Congratulations, guys.

MAYOR DISTLER: On behalf of myself and the Governing Body, we are extremely proud of our Police Department and their efforts and everything they do. And they just continue to prove themselves with honors and recognitions like this.

And I also under Mayor’s Items wanted to share. I received a letter from Mayor Gerlach of Overland Park. It said, “On behalf of the Governing Body of the City of Overland Park, I would like to express our deep appreciation for the assistance of the City of Shawnee in fighting the devastating City Place fire. The size of the burning structures challenged our city’s resources and the immediate support of your courageous firefighters was welcome and indispensable to prevent the spread of the fast-moving fire to an even greater area. So many jurisdictions, departments and agencies came to our aid and we are very grateful. Thank you for your willingness to assist. Sincerely, Carl Gerlach, Mayor of Overland Park.” So, just wanted to recognize the Fire Department as well.

E. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Business from the Floor. Is there anyone who has comments on an issue that is not on tonight’s agenda? If you’d please come forward. If you could speak your name and address for the record, please.

MR. MORRIS: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is David Morris. I live at (Address Omitted). Can I get this on? I wanted to first of all actually -- I’m pretty organized. I think my comments -- I wanted to make some comments and share some concerns with the Council. I think it will take a little bit more than five minutes. So, I’d request a little bit more time than five minutes tonight. Is that all right?

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay.

MR. MORRIS: Okay. Like I said, well, my wife and I recently moved from 61st and Melrose in the Trail Springs neighborhood to 60th and Ballentine in the Trail Springs neighborhood. We like the area, love it. We’ve done huge amounts of improvements to both locations and happy to be in Shawnee.

I sort of wanted to start with this. This is a culvert that’s at 60th and Ballentine that goes underneath 60th Street. For the longest time I didn’t even know that there was one there because it was pretty much buried and filled up. But actually I sort of want to start here. I had requested some time ago a CRS for a culvert at my old house. And basically it states that it’s a lot low priority to do those things and it would be three years, actually more before those types of projects would be done. I say that to give you a perspective on things. So, I needed to do some work, put some dirt up around the foundation of the new house that we moved into along with some -- moving some dirt throughout the yard. And so I did a selfie and posted it on Facebook. But I rented a Case 250 Uni-Loader to do the work. One of the things that I was concerned about was the culvert and that it wasn’t draining well. And so while I had the equipment to do it, I wanted to open that up because I knew that the City wouldn’t get to it for a long time. The history was that that was the case. So, redid the ditch along Ballentine on 60th Street. Used the dirt out of my yard to sort of re-sculpt it. It was great deep and hard to mow. I wanted to make it easier to mow, comply with MARC and actually Shawnee standards to slow the water down from going into streamways. Widened it out so that it accomplished it. We surveyed it and made sure it had the correct flow. This is a site from the other end. It was also designed to where -- Ballentine has a lot of traffic and people walk Ballentine all the time. Easier for them to get off to the side of the road and not have to jump a ditch. So, in September, so that was early August that we did that. September I got a letter from the City stating that they had televised a bunch of stormwater sewers and there was 26 locations that they were going to redo and the one at 60th and Ballentine was one that they were going to redo. One of the other reasons that they were going to redo this is because this year they’re going to mill and overlay Ballentine and 60th Street. And they felt like that this culvert was in disrepair and needed to be replaced. There was a meeting on it here at City Hall. Went to the meeting. Got information about it. This is the culvert at 60th and Ballentine. I had talked to -- we got a little bit more details where they were going to actually move the culvert over a little bit, do some sod work here. I had some concerns about this because we had just recently redid that ditch. Asked Cynthia to come out and meet with me in person and here’s a close-up of this area, Ballentine, 60th. My yard is right here. So, she came out with a couple other gentlemen, which I don’t remember their names. And at this end of the north end of my yard property and the ditch is basically was a four foot by four foot rock line, 3-4 foot deep hole that water came into and diverted out across into the side of these people’s yard. I suggested while they’re in there that they may want to take a look at putting a -- filling that in and putting just a, what do you call those things?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Inlet.

MR. MORRIS: Concrete inlet. And decided that was a good idea. I thought it was a great idea at the time. And that’s basically all I heard until we -- until the contractor came out to do construction. I had asked if -- in the letter we got we said that these areas were televised, in other words, sent a camera up through them to make sure that there was -- detect whether there was -- the pipes were in disrepair and needed repair. I don’t have any problems with that being done. But once they got the construction, pulled out the pipes, and I had requested -- but they said that there was no video of it, no photos of the disrepair. So, when I saw the pipes that they pulled out, I mean basically they were completely filled up. But I can argue that from what I see and what I saw of all the pipes they were not in disrepair. They were in good shape. Now, I don’t know about you as homeowners. But when sewer line or a line gets filled up I call a plumber, have them augur it out to open it up. And also if there is still -- if I’m concerned about a problem, then I have them send a video camera down through it and see what the problem is. In this case none of that was done. We just dug the stuff up --

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. Mr. Morris, I know you asked for additional time, but we’re at eight minutes now. So, any further time we’re going to have to have approval by the Council.

MR. MORRIS: Okay. I would ask -- I would to be approved.

MAYOR DISTLER: Does anyone want to make a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Motion to extend the speaker’s time by five minutes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed no. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kemmling and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to extend Mr. Morris’ time by five minutes.
The motion carried 7-0.]

MR. MORRIS: I’ll try to pick it up. The City’s Policy Statement for Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program basically states that, you know, the goal and the policy is to go through and try to maintain and keep these storm sewers open. I’ll stop there since I’m slow on time. You can go in and read the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program Policy Statement.

So, what we ended up with, let me go back real quick. So, I had real concerns, passionate about my landscaping, my property and the quality of work that gets done in the City, Doug Wesselschmidt was kind enough to come out and this was the drawing that he brought. It was not the drawing that I last saw. So, they were going to do all this through here in there. I never saw this drawing until Doug brought this out. Currently now I have almost a 23-inch deep ditch along there. It’s worse than what it was originally. It’s what I call the class Shawnee V-ditch. And what this does is funnel all the water down to a very, very narrow space and eventually, even though it’s sodded, I’ve seen it all over that -- the force of that water will eventually erode a channel down through there. That 23-inch deep ditch, let’s see if I can put this correctly. Ballentine, 60th. What I’ve got circled in red is basically what the drainage area is for that. It’s basically my house and part of another house. In the 25 years that I’ve been in this area it has never, never flooded. There is no need for a 23-inch deep ditch in there. The contractor left stuff like this. When Mr. Wesselschmidt was out I pointed this out to him. They replaced this with, and I’ll show it to you in another photo, a nice professional-looking end piece. But that’s terrible. I had asked Cynthia since I put all this dirt into there from my property if I could have some of the dirt back to use. She called said that they had a load of dirt. I said if it’s not clay I’d be happy to have it. She said it’s not. I said can we put it on the right side of the drive next to the tree. My drive is right here. The right side of the drive is right here. They dumped it in my yard that I had just seeded and the grass was starting to come up. My wife and I had over the weekend moved that whole huge pile of dirt. Frustrating. People make mistakes. I understand that. But just absolutely frustrating.

This was the sod that was laid in our property. Now, this is a very nice professional-looking end. Helps with the angle of the dirt so it’s not so steep, easier to mow. That’s what was put on the end eventually after --

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Morris, the five minutes are up. Is there something that you want to request or --

MR. MORRIS: Well, let me wrap it up real quickly. I can just hear people saying, look, you’re trying to micro-manage the City and its contractors. No, I just remodeled my house. I had a gas pipe pressure inspection. I had an insulation inspection. I had a drywall inspection. I had a final inspection. I had a rough-in inspection all with really, really minor types of things. Things like we forgot to fill in three holes with fire-resistant foam. Now, it seems like there’s a different standard for City and its contractors than for the general public and businesses. I mean these are policies that are meant to be adhered to and followed. We as private citizens follow those things. I’m glad. I’m glad that they caught the holes. I’m glad that they caught some of the electrical problems. I’m glad that they caught the plumbing problems. I don’t have a problem with it. It keeps me safe. It keeps things working right. I mean there are definitely policies that it doesn’t seem like the City is keeping its own contractors up to and it’s concerning. It’s not an isolated case. This was from 2012 from the 57th and Earnshaw drainage project. Again, laying dead sod in May.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Morris, we’re at 15 minutes.

MR. MORRIS: Okay. I just have -- I have concerns and do wish that the City policies would be followed.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. And I appreciate your comments. What could be helpful in the future if you e-mailed us those pictures and your comments beforehand, then when you would speak we would already have the history and the timeline that we could follow, and then that way it wouldn’t take away from your time in your presentation.

MR. MORRIS: I appreciate that. I’ve been really busy at work, so I haven’t had time to do that. But thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Well, thank you for your comments. Anyone else have comments on an issue that is not on tonight’s agenda? Seeing none.

F. PUBLIC ITEMS

1. PRESENTATION OF THE 2017 CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY.

MAYOR DISTLER: Next on the agenda is Public Items. Item Number 1 is the Presentation of the 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey. In January and February of 2017, ETC Institute of Olathe administered the City's third Citizen Satisfaction Survey. Jason Morado with ETC Institute will present the final results. Welcome, Jason.
2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey Presentation

MR. MORADO: Great. Thank you. My name is Jason Morado. I’m a Senior Project Manager at ETC Institute and it’s great to be here in Shawnee. I was here two years ago to present the results for the 2015 Citizen Satisfaction Survey. And I always remember that because it was the day right after the Royals won the World Series. So, it was a very festive and exciting time.

[ETC Institute slide]
So, today I’m here to go through some of the major findings from 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey. Before I get into it I have just one slide about ETC Institute. We are based in Olathe, but we’re a national leader in providing market research for local governments. We’ve been around for over 30 years. And in the last ten years alone we’ve done surveys in over 900 communities in 49 states. And that includes these types of surveys with about 30 different communities in the Kansas City Metro area. So, this is really the type of work that we specialize in.

[Agenda slide]
So, today I’ll go through the purpose and methodology of the survey. The bottom line up front is our main conclusions from the survey. And then I’ll go through some of the major findings and show how we came to those conclusions. And if anyone has any questions or comments as I’m going through, feel free to jump in.

[Purpose slide]
So, there’s several reasons to do a survey like this. One is to objectively assess how satisfied residents are with City services and then help determine what their priorities are. Also with this survey we’re able to measure trends from the previous surveys. This is the third time we’ve done this type of survey. And a lot of the questions have been the same each time we’ve done that. So, now we have three years’ worth of trend data we can look at. And then also with this survey we’re able to see how Shawnee stacks up with residents in other communities on both on a regional and a national basis.
[Methodology slide]
So, this survey was seven pages long. I mentioned it asked a lot of the same questions that we asked before. This is the third time we’ve done this survey with the first one being in 2012, but then also ‘15 and ‘17. And the survey was administered by a combination of mail, online and phone to randomly selected residents all across the City. And that’s really our standard methodology for community surveys. Our goal is to get at least 400 completed surveys. And we had a really great response this time. Ended up with 653 completed surveys. So, more than 250 more than our minimum goal. And one thing we always do when we administer community surveys is as we’re collecting the data we check the demographics of survey respondents to make sure it’s matching up with the actual demographics of the City. So, we had a really good representation by age, gender, race and ethnicity. And the results of these 653 surveys, at the 95 percent level of confidence has a margin of error plus or minus 3.8 percent. So, essentially that means if we did this survey the same way a hundred times 95 times the results would be plus or minus 3.8 percent from what we’re reporting. So, the results aren’t perfect, but really it’s a very small margin of error.

[Location of Survey Respondents slide]
So, here we have a map of the City and the red dots are households that completed a survey. So, we had a really good distribution throughout the City. And this looks very similar to what we had the last couple years when we did the survey as well. We also did a cross-tab that shows results broken down by the four wards. And I won’t go into that detail for this presentation, but that’s available with the report. And we had a very equal number of surveys through each one of the four wards.

[Bottom Line Up Front slide]
So, here’s our main conclusions from the survey. We found that overall residents had a very, very positive perception of the City. And there’s a lot of examples of that. But the two that to me really stand out the most is that 96 percent of residents rate the City as either an excellent or a good place to live. And 94 percent rated the City as an excellent or a good place to raise children.

So, of the 650-plus people who filled out the survey just about everyone thinks the City is an excellent or a good place both to live and raise children. We also found that the City is definitely moving in the right direction. The results have been good each time that we’ve done the survey, but this is actually the highest they’ve been yet. The satisfaction rating has either increased or stayed the same in 68 out of the 80 areas that we compared. And we’ll look at this in more detail in a little bit. But in a lot of cases their satisfaction ratings have increased significantly since the last survey. And then the ratings have also increased or stayed the same in 55 out of the 80 areas going back to 2012, the first year we did the survey.

So, then we also did some bench marking comparisons to see how Shawnee compares to other communities. And the satisfaction of City services overall is much, much higher in Shawnee than it is in other communities. And we’ll look at this in more detail in a little bit also. But the City rated above the Kansas and Missouri regional average in 54 out of the 56 areas that we compared, and above the U.S. average in 52 out of those 56 areas.

And then we also found that the top priorities over the next couple of years are maintenance of City streets, enforcement of City codes and ordinances, and then a flow of traffic and congestion management.
Major Finding #1
Residents have a very positive perception of the City.

[Q3. Satisfaction with items that influence the perception residents have of the City]
So, the first area we’ll look at is general perceptions residents have of the City. Here we asked residents to rate the perceptions of the City on a five-point scale. And there’s a number of questions throughout the report that look like this. So, the dark blue are residents who are very satisfied. The light blue are satisfied. The white are neutral, in other words average. They rate these items as a three on a five-point scale. And then the red are residents who are dissatisfied.

So, there’s a couple things that stand out here. One is that the positive ratings obviously by far outweigh the negative overall. And then a couple areas I wanted to point out, if you look at that very top row, overall quality of life in the City, 88 percent of residents are either very satisfied or satisfied compared to only three percent who are dissatisfied.

And then the other noteworthy item here, that third row down, 68 percent of residents are either very satisfied or satisfied with the value received for city tax dollars and fees compared to only nine percent who are dissatisfied. So, you’ve got almost an 8 to 1 ratio of residents who are satisfied versus dissatisfied with the value received for city taxes and fees. And usually that -- on average that number is typically about two or three to one. So, this is much, much better than what we usually see in other communities.

[Q1. Overall Satisfaction with City Services by Major Category slide]
So, this is the very first question on the survey. Here we asked residents to rate how satisfied they are with majority categories of City Services. Later on in the survey we asked residents to rate some more specific areas within these categories. So, this is really more of the macro level, big picture view of each of these areas. And obviously the positive ratings far outweigh the negative. In fact, for each one of these items you have 15 percent or less of residents who are dissatisfied which is a very, very low number. Usually when we ask this question, even if the ratings [inaudible] usually there’s at least two or three items where 25, 30, 35 percent of residents are dissatisfied. So, the ratings are positive in all of these areas. And, in fact, there’s four areas where over 80 percent of residents are satisfied and three percent are less or dissatisfied.

So, we just start at the top of that list, Police, Fire and Ambulance services have the highest satisfaction rating followed by Parks and Recreation, Programs and Facilities, Maintenance of City buildings, and then Customer Service of City Employees.

[Q4. How Residents Rate the City of Shawnee slide]
In this question we asked residents to rate the quality of life in the City in a number of different areas. Here there is very, very few dissatisfied residents for any of these items. And the two that especially that stand out the most are the ones I pointed out a couple of slides ago. Ninety-six percent of residents rate the City as an excellent or a good place to live. Then 94 percent rate the City as an excellent or a good place to raise children.

[Overall Quality of Life in the City slide]
So, here we have a map of the City again. And what we did here is we broke the results down by census block group. So, what we do here is we take the average rating of residents within a census block group and then shade that area the appropriate color. So, this map is for overall quality of life in the City. You can see that there’s some areas that are light blue. Most of it is dark blue. So, really what this says is that residents overall in all parts of the City are satisfied with the overall quality of life in the City. And we did a map like this for every question on the survey that we asked on a five-point scale. So, there’s over a hundred maps and it’s really a great way to look at the results in a lot more detailed level geographically.
Major Finding #2
The City is Moving in the Right Direction

[Overall Satisfaction with City Services by Major Category - 2012 to 2017 slide]
So, move on to the trend comparisons. Definitely we found that overall the ratings have increase from the previous surveys. So, here the blue line are the satisfaction ratings from the 2017 survey. Yellow are the ratings from two years ago. Then orange are the satisfaction ratings from the first year we did the survey in 2012. So, I put blue arrows by the items where the satisfaction has increased by at least five percent since the last survey.

So, in most of these areas the ratings have increased a little bit. But three areas especially stand out, Customer service from City employees. You can see that’s increased by five percent since the last survey. Effectiveness of City communication with the public, 75 percent satisfaction rating this year, which is up ten percent from the last survey. And then maintenance of City streets is also up ten percent from the last survey. And those items all had gone down a little bit from 2012 to 2015, but now they’re back up higher than they were five years ago also.

[Q3. Satisfaction with Items that Influence the Perception Residents Have of the City - 2012 to 2017 slide]
Here are the comparisons for perceptions of the City. You can see a couple areas have had a big increase since last survey. Value received for City tax dollars and fees is up nine percent. And then how well the City is managing and planning for growth is up eight percent.

[Q5. How Residents Rate the City of Shawnee Leadership - 2012 to 2017 slide]
This one is -- these trends are for City leadership. You can see all three areas have had a big increase since last time. Quality of leadership by elected officials is up five percent. Effectiveness of City Manager and appointed staff up 12 percent from two years ago. Also higher than where it was five years ago. And then accessibility and responsiveness of City leaders, up nine percent from 2015.

[Q6. Satisfaction with Various Aspects of City Maintenance - 2012 to 2017 slide]
And then for maintenance, most of these ratings went up a little bit, but five in particular stand out. Snow removal on major City streets, maintenance of traffic signals, mowing and trimming along City streets and public areas is up seven percent since last time. Snow removal on neighborhood streets and the maintenance of sidewalks. This is the area that had probably the biggest jump since the last survey, up 14 percent from two years ago. And then here we do have one item that had a decrease in satisfaction since last year. Maintenance and preservation of downtown Shawnee is down nine percent from the last survey.

[Q8. Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Code Enforcement - 2012 to 2017 slide]
So, now we look at Code Enforcement. All of these items went up at least a little bit from the last survey, but two items especially stand out. Enforcing sign regulations, then enforcing mowing and cutting of weeds on private property.

[Q10. Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Parks and Recreation - 2012 to 2017 slide]
For Parks and Recreation, most of these went up as well. Then six in particular stand out. Number of City parks, special events, outdoor athletic fields, ease of registering for programs is up 12 percent from the last survey, another one of the bigger increases. Fees charged for recreation programs, and then the City’s adult recreation program is also up by more than five percent since the last survey.

[Q13. Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Public Safety - 2012 to 2017 slide]
For Public Safety, a lot of these are up as well. And then here we also have six items that are significantly higher than the last survey. Quality of local fire protection, enforcement of local traffic laws, City efforts to prevent fires, visibility of police in neighborhoods. Fire safety education programs is up seven percent. Police safety educations programs up eight percent.

[Q21c. How Often Did the Employee You Contacted Display the Following Type of Behavior? - 2012 to 2017 slide]
And this one is for customer service. These numbers are based on people who have actually contacted the City in the past year, which was a little over a third of our survey respondents. So, all of these ratings are very high, which you’ll see in the bench marking area. But two of them in particular had a big increase since last time. How courteous and polite residents feel like City employees were increased by five percent since the last survey. And then also City employees doing what they said they would in a timely manner. And you can see all these have increased both since the last survey and really a significant amount going back to 2012.

[Q22. Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Communication - 2012 to 2017 slide]
And then here trends for Communication. You can see all five of these items had a big jump since the last survey, especially the availability of information about programs and services up 15 percent. City efforts to inform residents on local issues is up 13 percent.
Major Finding #3
Satisfaction Levels in Shawnee
Are Significantly Higher than
the Regional and National Averages in Most Areas

[Overall Satisfaction with Various City Services Shawnee vs. Kansas & Missouri Region vs the U.S. slide]
So, we also look at comparisons to other communities. And definitely the satisfaction ratings are much, much higher in Shawnee than we see in other communities overall. So, here the blue line are the satisfaction ratings for the 2017 Shawnee survey. The red are satisfaction ratings for residents who live throughout Kansas and Missouri. And then the yellow are the ratings for residents across the U.S. And this is based on a national study that ETC Institute did last year with randomly selected residents all across the country. And we do a study like this every one to two years, so that way our bench marking comparisons are always using recent data.

So, this is for major categories of City services. You can see all eight of these items Shawnee is more than ten percent above both the regional and national average. A couple items that especially stand though are customer service from City employees, that third row down. Eighty-one percent satisfaction for the City. You can see that’s almost 30 percent above the regional average and more 30 percent above the national average.

[Satisfaction with Issues that Influence Perceptions of the City Shawnee vs. Kansas & Missouri Region vs. the U.S. slide]
Here are comparisons for perceptions of the City. These are significantly above the bench marking averages also. The one that stands out the most here to me is that third one, Value you receive for City taxes and fees, 68 percent satisfaction for the City. You can see that’s 30 percent above the national average, almost 30 percent above the regional average.

[Overall Ratings of the Community Shawnee vs. Kansas & Missouri Region vs. the U.S. slide]
And for overall ratings of the community, again the two that really stand out are how residents feel about the City as a place to live and as a place to raise children. You can see both of those are significantly above both the regional and national average.

[Overall Satisfaction with City Maintenance Shawnee vs. Kansas & Missouri Region vs. the U.S. slide]
For maintenance, these items are all rated very highly as well. Each one of them more than ten percent above both the regional and national average. In many cases much more than that, even 15, 20, 25 percent above.

[Overall Satisfaction with Code Enforcement Shawnee vs. Kansas & Missouri Region vs. the U.S. slide]
For code enforcement, here most of these are pretty much right on par with other communities. The one that does stand out being higher is enforcing sign regulations.

[Overall Satisfaction with Parks and Recreation Shawnee vs. Kansas & Missouri Region vs. the U.S. slide]
Then for Parks and Recreation, this is another area where every item is significantly above the other communities. Each one is more than ten percent above the bench marking averages. And again, in a lot cases even much more than that.

[Overall Satisfaction with Public Safety Services Shawnee vs. Kansas & Missouri Region vs. the U.S. slide]
For Public Safety, most of these items are significantly above the bench marking averages. The one that to me stands out the most here is that second row down, Overall quality of local police protection, 91 percent satisfaction rating for the City which you can see is 25 percent above the regional average, more than 20 percent above the national average. And then there’s a lot of other items as well that are 15 to 20 percent above the bench marking averages.

[Overall Satisfaction with Communication Shawnee vs. Kansas & Missouri Region vs. the U.S. slide]
For Communication, the web page is pretty much on par with other communities. The other three items are significantly above, especially the availability of information about programs and services is more than 30 percent above both the regional and national average.

[Overall Satisfaction with Customer Service Shawnee vs. Kansas & Missouri Region vs. the U.S. slide]
And then here for Customer Service, this is definitely one of the real stand-out areas on the survey. And again, this is based on people who have actually contacted in the past year. Every one of these areas you can see is significantly above the bench marking averages, each one more than 20 percent above.
Major Finding #4
Top Community Priorities

[Importance-Satisfaction Rating Overall slide]
So, then we also took a look at what should be some of the top priorities. So, this is the Importance-Satisfaction Rating. And this is a tool that was created by ETC Institute more than 20 years ago. And it’s really a great way to help set priorities. So, this analysis is based on two questions on the survey. First we asked residents how satisfied they are with City services. And then the follow-up question is which of these services are the most important for the City to emphasize. So, the idea here is that those items have a combination of a low satisfaction rating, but also a high importance and should be the top overall priorities. So, this one is for major categories of City services. The top overall priority is maintenance of City streets. Residents rated that as the most important item for this list of nine for the City to emphasize. And it ranks second to last in satisfaction. Now, remember for satisfaction it still rated much, much higher than other communities. So, it’s definitely not a bad rating, but it rated the second lowest among these list of items. Then the second and third highest priorities are code enforcement and traffic flow.

[Importance-Satisfaction Rating Maintenance slide]
Then we also did this type of analysis for some more specific areas. This one is for Maintenance. The top two priorities which are rated very closely together are maintenance of sidewalks, then maintenance of curbs and gutters. And then third is adequacy of street lighting.

[Importance-Satisfaction Rating Parks and Recreation slide]
And then for Parks and Recreation, here the satisfaction ratings were very high overall, so nothing even fell into a high or very high priority category. These are all in the medium priority area. But the highest on this list is the number of walking and biking trails.

[Importance-Satisfaction Rating Emergency Services slide]
And then the same thing for Emergency Services, none of these stood out as an area of big concern. But the two highest priorities are City efforts to prevent crime and then the visibility of police in neighborhoods.

[Summary slide]
So, then just a quick recap. Overall, residents you saw had an extremely positive perception of the City. I went through the examples of how the residents rated the City as a place to live and as a place to raise children. Also rated really high in regards to the overall value received for City taxes and fees and then overall quality of life in the City. Definitely the City is moving in the right direction. The ratings have been good every time we’ve done the survey. But this time they’ve increased significantly both short-term and long-term. And then also you saw those bench marking slides. Definitely the City of Shawnee rates much, much higher than other communities in just about every category we looked at, both regionally and nationally. And then the top overall priorities, and these were the top ones the last time we did the survey as well, maintenance of City streets, codes and ordinances and traffic flow.

Does anyone have any questions or comments?

MAYOR DISTLER: Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Mr. Neighbor?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Thank you very much for your presentation. After seeing this after the past several years, I find it very encouraging with the results that you come up with. You know, the fact that you have 150 percent of goal that surveyed and completed it I think that far exceeds the last several years. But I just think it’s a validation of the vision and policies that the Governing Body has for where we want Shawnee to go. And it is also kudos to the City Manager and her staff for carrying those out and going forward. We have room to improve we know. Codes, we’re working on it. Street maintenance, we were behind, we’re catching up. And I would say collectively that the group in front of you, it’s our job and duty to get even better. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments from the Council? Ms. Meyer?

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I would echo what Councilmember Neighbor. Thank you. It was a good presentation. I did have one question. I know we had a couple of questions on the survey dealing specifically with the Community Center. Are you able to touch on those results at all?

MR. MORADO: They are in the report. I mean they were, you know, I don’t remember off-hand exactly what they were, but they were, I mean, they were generally positive. You know, there is more satisfied or more, yeah, satisfied than dissatisfied for sure. But that information is in the report in a lot more detail.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments from the Council?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We can pull that page up if you’d like.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That would be great. Yeah. I thought it was fairly high, which is -- yeah.

MR. MORADO: The other thing I should mention, while we had a great response rate to this survey, but then we also put the survey online for anyone to fill out. So, that’s the non-random sample. And we kept those results separated from this group. But we about 170 people fill out the survey online who were not part of the random sample. So, if you add that to this, you know, over 800 people filled out the survey.

MAYOR DISTLER: Were the online results consistent with the mail-in and phone call ones?

MR. MORADO: They were very similar. I mean there were a little differences, but they were very similar overall. And the demographics for that group was a little different. You know, for that group we weren’t tracking that the way we were with this one.

Yeah. So, this is the question you’re referring to about a new indoor community center. So, definitely positive. I mean 64 percent are supportive, either very supportive or somewhat supportive compared to only 13 percent not supportive. A good chunk who were not sure, 23 percent. But definitely these are very, very positive results. We especially look at the ratio of very supportive to not supportive on these types of questions. So, you’ve got almost a 3 to 1 ration of very to not supportive.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other -- Mr. Jenkins?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. During your presentation that one slide that talked about codes enforcement and that kind of stuff --

MR. MORADO: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- and what the -- our comparison levels were –

MR. MORADO: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- with regional and national averages. And we actually fell below our regional and national averages on a number of those. We didn’t spend much time on that slide.

MR. MORADO: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But from what I could catch in the brief moment it was up on there, we’re actually not doing as well in some of these areas.

MR. MORADO: Yeah. And most of these are pretty much on par. You know, within -- you can see within one or two percent of the regional averages. So, it doesn’t rate as good as the other areas definitely. But there’s nothing that’s significantly below. And the good thing is all five of these areas increased since the last survey. In a lot of cases it’s just by a little bit. But all five of these have improved since 2015.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean I do see that, but --

MR. MORADO: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- but when you take it into context, you look at all the other ones with all these large blue bars and this one here.

MR. MORADO: Right. Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s a pretty stark contrast in the two. Well, not in the two, in this slide as opposed to all those other slides.

MR. MORADO: Right. Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, I think it really does let us focus in on this. And I think it’s something we need to take under advisement.

MR. MORADO: Right. Yeah.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none. This item is for informational purposes only, so no action is required. Thank you very much.

MR. MORADO: Thank you.

2. CONSIDER RESOLUTION NO. 1798 AND 1799 AND ORDINANCE NO. 3180 RELATED TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BEST BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND DELIVERY OF GENERAL OBLIGATION INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT AND REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2017A.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Consider Resolution No. 1798 and 1799 and Ordinance No. 3180 related to the Acceptance of the Best Bids and Authorizing the Sale and Delivery of General Obligation Internal Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A. On February 27, 2017, the Governing Body authorized the sale of general obligation bonds for Monday, March 27, 2017. One series of bonds are being offered and bids were opened at 10:00 a.m. Dave MacGillivray from Springsted, the City's Financial Advisor, is here to provide more information. Welcome, Dave. Sorry about the chopping of --

MR. MacGILLIVRAY: No. It happens a lot. You were really close. I’m Dave MacGillivray, Chairman of Springsted, your financial advisor. I’m going to follow-up with that very good citizen survey with some very good financial information. I’m going to do that ways. First, the bond sale today and then more salient, the City’s credit rating, which was viewed as part of that sale.

So, as you stated we’re financing both some new improvements, transportation and storm drainage, as well as refunding a 2006 issue to reduce future interest cost savings. So, both of those are packaged together in one bond sale.

Took the bids at ten a.m. this morning. We received ten bids which is a very large number of bids. The lowest or best bid from Piper Jaffray at a rate of 1.89 percent. That’s for ten years of bonds. Let’s see. We did an estimate at the market at the time when we started formally in the middle of February. Based on the market at that time it was 2.21, so that’s three-tenths of a percent, which in the millions of dollars area it’s a fair amount of money in terms of interest rate.

What that means in terms of the refunding, which was to save money and it saves it over a period of 2017 to 2021, is, you know, the future value each year after all costs is about $200,000. That’s the whole works for that five years or about 40,000 a year. If you bring that all back today present value, net of all cost is $138,000.

So, in terms of the bond sale, ten bids is an awful lot of bids, so it really is -- you’re really attractive to the market. And the rate is extremely low for something like that. And you’ve seen and heard interest rates have been bouncing all around since the national election. They’ve bounced in your favor the last there or four days. And particularly as in the last week things have come down as well. So, the sale was well-timed.

But also a big reason for that excellent result is your credit rating. Whenever you do a bond sale your general obligation rating, which is bonds are backed by property taxes and the community’s package of credit worthiness on both demands on those resources and the supply of those resources. So, the City’s rating is an Aa1 which is in Moody’s code. The highest possible is an Aaa rating. There’s a couple hundred nationally out of 10,000 ratings. Right below is an Aa1 where you are. So, you’re just right below the Aaa rating. It goes down from that into Aa2, and Baa1, and then it’s not investment grade. So, you’re really at the top echelon of the ratings. When they look at ratings they have four major criteria.

The big drivers are socio-economics and finance. Then they have governance and management and debt. So, I’m just going to go read from the Moody’s report and give you some highlights of their comments. Factors that could lead to an upgrading. Continued growth in the City’s tax base, sustained trend of surplus operations leading to bolstered reserve position, diversity of the revenue stream. So, particularly with tax lids, you know, the fact that you’re diversified and your revenue is for funding operations is a big positive. To the extent you need more of that as this tax lid situation evolves, you know, they would view that as a positive as well. Factors that would lead to a downgrade, multi-year trend of deficit spending leading to erosion of reserves, which means, you know, unbalanced General Fund budget and reduction in the fund balance and then reduction in the tax base which I don’t think is going to happen.

So, they go through all these things with just a little bit more flavor. In terms of debt, you have a very manageable debt burden. That includes your pension obligations through the state programs. And lastly, high marks in governance and management. You just saw that internally from your own citizenry and externally now from Moody’s Investor Service. And ultimately it’s the decisions you make that set these things in position. And all of this comes down to, you know, the fact that you have at the highest echelon of ratings leads to a lot lower interest cost, lot lower property taxes to pay those bonds back.

So, that’s a very good sale. Excellent rating report. I recommend award to Piper and I’ll be glad to take any questions.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any questions? Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. Thank you for that report. That was helpful. I just was curious about what separates us from Aaa? What do we need to do to be there? If we want -- so inclined to be there.

MR. MacGILLIVRAY: Yeah. Aaa is a tough one and it’s a, you know, there’s factors in your control and outside of your control. And I think, you know, I’ll go to the ones that are -- I mention socio-economic, financing, debt, governance. So, three of those you have more control over than the socio-economic. Not that that’s -- it’s a good picture of socio-economics. But it’s a bit tangential from the decisions you make to improve in the short term. You have excellent fund balance. The most important thing you can do is keep the fund balance about where it is, which is, you know, somewhere around -- it’s slightly above your policy objective, but that’s the most important thing you control. You have very modest debt. I have to mention when they say debt they mean not just your debt, but the school district debt that’s on your tax base and the share of the county debt. So, your own debt is extremely low. And, you know, decisions, the governance and management, you get high marks there. So, things you can control, fund balance is really the big driver in that. It doesn’t mean you’ll get there because there’s other things, but that’s what you can control.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Council?

(a) Adopt Resolution No. 1798, accepting the best bid for Internal Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. So, there are three recommended actions. The first is to consider adopting Resolution No. 1798, accepting the best bid for bonds. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to adopt Resolution No. 1798, accepting the best bid for Internal Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A. The motion carried 7-0.]

(b) Pass Ordinance No. 3180, authorizing the issuance and delivery of Internal Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to consider passing Ordinance No. 3180, authorizing the issuance and delivery of the bonds. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to pass Ordinance No. 3180, authorizing the issuance and delivery of Internal Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A.
The motion carried 7-0.]

(c) Adopt Resolution No. 1799, prescribing the form and details for Internal Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A.

MAYOR DISTLER: The final action is consider adopting Resolution No. 1799, prescribing the form and details for the bonds. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to adopt Resolution No. 1799, prescribing the form and details for Internal Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A. The motion carried 7-0.]

3. CONSIDER RESOLUTION NO. 1800, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A DEED AND RELATED DOCUMENTS CONVEYING PROPERTY TO MATHER ENTERPRISES IN CONNECTION WITH MATURITY OF BONDS FOR 8306 HEDGE LANE TERRACE.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to Consider Resolution No. 1800, Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a Deed and Related Documents Conveying Property to Mather Enterprises in Connection with Maturity of Bonds for 8306 Hedge Lane Terrace. In 2006, the City issued $2,450,000 of Industrial Revenue Bonds to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of warehouse buildings located at 8306 Hedge Lane Terrace. The Company has notified the City that the bonds have been paid in full and requests to exercise its option to purchase the Project as provided in the Lease Agreement. A resolution is required. The recommended action is to adopt Resolution No. 1800. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to Adopt Resolution No. 1800, approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Special Warranty Deed and other release documents, subject to the conditions set forth therein and final approval of Bond Counsel and the City Attorney. The motion carried 7-0.]

4. CONSIDER APPROVING A SHAWNEE ENTREPRENEURIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (SEED) LOAN FEE REPAYMENT PROGRAM FOR PINNACLE GYMNASTICS.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 4 is to Consider Approving a Shawnee Entrepreneurial and Economic Development (SEED) Loan Fee Repayment Program for Pinnacle Gymnastics. Policy Statement (PS-65), Economic Development Fund, established the Loan Fee Repayment Program. Pinnacle Gymnastics has formally requested consideration for the program. The recommended action is approving the Loan Fee Repayment Program Application for Pinnacle Gymnastics and authorizing payment of a sum not to exceed $25,000 of qualifying loan fees upon final receipt of verification of program qualifications by the Finance Director. Morgan Kuchynka from Pinnacle and Matt Wallace from First National Bank of Omaha are here tonight on behalf of the business. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS NEIGHBOR, JENKINS, VAUGHT, MEYER, SANDIFER, KENIG: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Nay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Motion passes. Mr. Kemmling voting in dissent.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Meyer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve the Loan Fee Repayment Program Application for Pinnacle Gymnastics and authorizing payment of a sum not to exceed $25,000 of qualifying loan fees upon final receipt of verification of program qualifications by the Finance Director. The motion carried 6-1 with Councilmember Kemmling voting no.]

5. CONSIDER APPROVING AND ACCEPTING A RECREATIONAL TRAIL EASEMENT AND DEED OF DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY RELATED TO A RAILROAD QUIET ZONE LOCATED AT THE 7300 AND 7500 BLOCKS OF MARTINDALE ROAD.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 5 is to Consider Approving and Accepting a Recreational Trail Easement and Deed of Dedication for Public Right-of-way Related to a Railroad Quiet Zone Located at the 7300 and 7500 Blocks of Martindale Road. The City has been working on implementing a Railroad Quiet Zone along the Emporia Subdivision Line. In conformance with an agreement approved by the Governing Body on November 28, 2016, a trail easement and dedication of right-of-way are included for consideration.

(a) Approve and accept a recreational trail easement for a future recreation trail that would connect Martindale Road to the Johnson County Mill Creek Streamway Trail.

MAYOR DISTLER: There are two recommended actions. The first is to consider approving and accepting a recreational trail easement for a future recreation trail that would connect Martindale Road to the Johnson County Mill Creek Streamway Trail. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kenig and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to approve and accept a recreational trail easement for a future recreation trail that would connect Martindale Road to the Johnson County Mill Creek Streamway Trail. The motion carried 7-0.]

(b) Approve and accept a deed of dedication of public right-of-way the northwest corner of 7315 Martindale.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to consider approving and accepting a deed of dedication of public right-of-way along the northwest corner of 7315 Martindale. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to approve and accept a deed of dedication of public right-of-way along the northwest corner of 7315 Martindale. The motion carried 7-0.]

6. CONSIDER RESOLUTION NO. 1801 AND ORDINANCE NO. 3181 AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE 6200 BLOCK OF NIEMAN CULVERT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, P.N. 3401, SMAC TC-21-070.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 6 is to Consider Resolution No. 1801 and Ordinance No. 3181 Authorizing Acquisition of Private Property for the 6200 Block of Nieman Culvert Improvements Project, P.N. 3401, SMAC TC-21-070. This project is currently under construction and necessitates right-of-way, permanent drainage easements, utility easements, temporary construction easements and access into the channel on both sides of Nieman Road. A Resolution and Ordinance are required to begin the condemnation process while continuing to work to obtain any outstanding easements.

a) Authorize staff to acquire easements and right-of-way on the 6200 Block of Nieman Stormwater Improvements Project by initially extending easement acquisition compensation offerings calculated by partial value offers based on the method identified in the council memo.

MAYOR DISTLER: There are three recommended actions. The first is to consider authorizing staff to acquire easements and right-of-way on seven tracts of private property. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to authorize staff to acquire easements and right-of-way on the 6200 Block of Nieman Stormwater Improvements Project by initially extending easement acquisition compensation offerings calculated by partial value offers based on the method identified in the council memo. The motion carried 7-0.]

b) Adopt Resolution No. 1801, declaring it necessary to acquire private property for the 6200 Block of Nieman Culvert Improvements Project, P.N. 3401.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to consider adopting Resolution No. 1801, declaring it necessary to acquire private property for the project. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to adopt Resolution No. 1801, declaring it necessary to acquire private property related to the 6200 Block of Nieman Culvert Improvement Project, P.N. 3401, SMAC TC-21-070. The motion carried 7-0.]

c) Pass Ordinance No. 3181, authorizing the acquisition of easements and right-of-way on the seven tracts of private property identified in the Easement Acquisition Summary Table for the 6200 Block of Nieman Culvert Improvements Project, P.N. 3401.

MAYOR DISTLER: The final action is to consider passing Ordinance No. 3181, authorizing the acquisition of easements and right-of-way. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to pass Ordinance No. 3181, authorizing the acquisition of easements and right-of-way on the seven tracts of private property identified in the Easement Acquisition Summary Table for the 6200 Block of Nieman Culvert Improvements Project, P.N. 3401, SMAC TC-21-070. The motion carried 7-0.]

7. CONSIDER RESOLUTION NO. 1802 AND ORDINANCE NO. 3182 AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE NIEMAN ROAD CORRIDOR MIDDLE STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, P.N. 3424, SMP TC-21-073.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 7 is to Consider Resolution No. 1802 and Ordinance No. 3182 Authorizing Acquisition of Private Property for the Nieman Road Corridor Middle Storm Drainage Improvements Project, P.N. 3424, SMP TC-21-073. This project is currently under construction and necessitates permanent drainage easements, utility easements and temporary construction easements. A Resolution and Ordinance are required to begin the condemnation process while continuing to work to obtain any outstanding easements.

(a) Authorize staff to acquire easements on the Nieman Road Corridor Middle Storm Drainage Improvements Project by initially extending easement acquisition compensation offerings calculated by partial value offers based on the method identified in the council memo.

MAYOR DISTLER: There are three recommended actions. The first is to consider authorizing staff to acquire easements on 16 tracts of private property. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to authorize staff to acquire easements on the Nieman Road Corridor Middle Storm Drainage Improvements Project, P.N. 3424, TC-21-073, by initially extending easement acquisition compensation offerings calculated by partial value offers based on the method identified in the council memo.
The motion carried 7-0.]

(b) Adopt Resolution No. 1802, declaring it necessary to acquire easements on the 16 tracts of private property identified in the Easement Acquisition Summary Table for the Nieman Road Corridor Middle Storm Drainage Improvements Project, P.N. 3424.

MAYOR DISTLER: The second action is to consider adopting resolution No. 1802, declaring it necessary to acquire private property for the project. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to adopt Resolution No. 1802, declaring it necessary to acquire easements on the 16 tracts of private property identified in the Easement Acquisition Summary Table for the Nieman Road Corridor Middle Storm Drainage Improvements Project, P.N. 3424, TC-21-073. The motion carried 7-0.]

(c) Pass Ordinance No. 3182, authorizing the acquisition of easements on the 16 tracts of private property identified in the Easement Acquisition Summary Table Nieman Road Corridor Middle Storm Drainage Improvements Project, P.N. 3424.

MAYOR DISTLER: The final action is to consider passing Ordinance No. 3182, authorizing the acquisition of the easements. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to pass Ordinance No. 3182, authorizing the acquisition of easements on the 16 tracts of private property identified in the Easement Acquisition Summary Table Nieman Road Corridor Middle Storm Drainage Improvements Project, P.N. 3424, TC-21-073. The motion carried 7-0.]

G. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2017

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is Items from the Planning Commission Meeting of March 6, 2017.

1. CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 3183, Z-01-17-03, REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN AND AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR CANYON LAKES LOCATED IN THE 23900-24700 BLOCKS OF CLEAR CREEK PARKWAY.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 1 is to Consider Ordinance No. 3183, Z-01-17-03, Rezoning from Residential Suburban and Agricultural to Single Family Residential for Canyon Lakes Located in the 23900-24700 Blocks of Clear Creek Parkway. The Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the Governing Body approve Z-01-17-03. An Ordinance is required.

K.S.A. 12-757 outlines the actions a Governing Body can take when the Planning Commission submits a recommendation for rezoning. In order to pass the Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission, at least five favorable votes from Councilmembers is required. The Mayor may vote if the vote is one less than needed for approval. In order to override the Planning Commission's recommendation, at least six favorable votes from the entire Governing Body is required and the Mayor is authorized to and should vote. In order to send the recommendation back to the Planning Commission, a majority vote of those present and voting is required and the Mayor is authorized to and should vote. The motion would need to state specific items the Governing Body requires the Planning Commission to discuss.

Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Is there going to be any presentation on this at all? Because I would just -- the big issue seems to be traffic and I would just like to hear from our folks about how they are addressing the traffic issue that’s being raised.

MR. MANNING: Kevin Manning, Transportation Manager. So, basically whenever the City is looking at a new development there is kind of a few things that go into determining whether or not a traffic study is needed. One being approximately how much traffic is going to be generated, and then two, where that traffic is going to be generated from. In this case there was not a formal traffic study that was required. While this is a fairly large residential development, its placement, kind of on the west side of the City and the fact that the vast majority of trips are going to be going east through infrastructure that is well below capacity made staff comfortable that a traffic study wouldn’t needed. That doesn’t mean that staff did not conduct traffic analysis. We have looked at that. And we are comfortable with the existing lines on Clare Road and then also the fact that Clear Creek Parkway is being built through the middle of the development and also 55th Street being well below capacity, the existing infrastructure out there will be sufficient to handle any traffic increases this development will generate.

MAYOR DISTLER: Does that answer your question?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That answered my questions. But I’m sure we’re going to hear comments on that most likely.

MR. RAINEY: I’m sorry to interrupt. Mr. Chaffee, I had several Councilmembers ask if we could go over a copy of the golden criteria that were considered by the Planning Commission if you have that in front of you so we could run through that pretty quickly.

MR. CHAFFEE: Certainly. And in the Planning Commission staff report that’s an attachment to your documents, we go through the rezoning factors and go into much more detail than I’ll go through. But basically the golden factors are the character of the neighborhood, surrounding zoning and uses of the nearby property, suitability of the subject property for which it’s been restricted, the extent to which removal of the restrictions would detrimentally affect nearby property. In other words, if you zone it from one zoning district to another, is it a big detriment to the properties. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare by the destruction of value of owner’s property compared to the hardship imposed on individual property owners. Length of time subject property has remained vacant as zoned. And then the recommendation of staff and the conformance of the requested change to the Land Use Guide or the City’s Comprehensive Plan. And so those are the basic factors. And then we go into more detail with each of those for the Planning Commission than you have it attached with your document.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Paul, can you kind of go over real quickly to, you know, there’s a confusion about the difference between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. I know a lot of people don’t understand what those two are.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And we’re not changing the Comprehensive Plan, but can you kind of explain what that all is?

MR. CHAFFEE: All right. The City’s Comprehensive Plan is just a broad overview of development patterns and does not -- the categories that are showed on the Comprehensive Plan are not zoning districts, but more broad definitions of different types of uses, commercial, office, service, low density residential, rural residential, high density residential, parks and recreation, public and quasi-public spaces where zoning is a specific designation on a map that regulates minimum lot sizes, lot frontages, setbacks, any other special requirements that may be required in a certain zoning district. So, the zoning district is a more specialized designation than what you would see on the Comprehensive Plan.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, that being said I think there’s also some confusion then because there’s an assumption that once the zoning is passed on a certain piece of ground that that zoning must day. But the reality is is until the development actually -- the zoning is approved based on a development plan. And if that development plan ever becomes -- comes to fruition that the zoning can actually change to something as long as it theoretically fits within the Comprehensive Plan. Is that --

MR. CHAFFEE: Well, if there was no rezoning of property we wouldn’t be having any rezoning cases also.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, I know. Exactly. So, that’s what I’m saying. So, once you get --

MR. CHAFFEE: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- you know, because I know there’s a question if it’s RS zoning.

MR. CHAFFEE: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, once it’s zoned RS there’s nothing that says, there’s no law or anything that says it has to stay RS, it’s --

MR. CHAFFEE: Right. A developer could come in and request commercial zoning on a piece of property or some other type of --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, Chapel Creek, for instance, I know that when Rodrock took that he wanted to, it would -- and the development already had numerous households in it.

MR. CHAFFEE: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: He wanted to change the zoning within it I believe, or change the zoning of whole thing allowing a higher density within it. But I know that he negotiated out. And so while we did it became a -- it kind of fit within.

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But even after those houses were built he was able to go in and --

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct. And the western portion of Chapel Creek was rezoned from residential suburban to R-1 single family residential.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Ms. Meyer.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. I’ll just piggyback off of that a little bit. So, the Comprehensive Plan lists this area including the part we’re talking about tonight as low density residential. So, can you walk us through what that means?

MR. CHAFFEE: Low density residential development is one to five dwelling units per acre. And generally you would expect to see single family development, but you can also see multi-family development that’s at a low density could occur.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. And this is at 2.0 for the top part we’re talking about now?

MR. CHAFFEE: This portion is 2.0 dwelling units, which is a little less than the single family had been for Farmington Hills.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Okay. Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: One question.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What’s the density, just curiosity? I’ve kind of tried to look at it, but -- I know that Sylvan Creek is a RS neighborhood. That’s low density.

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But the ones, the other ones that border those other neighborhoods, what are the density on those? Do you know?

MR. CHAFFEE: The ones to the north are around 2-2.5. Heartland Hills, which is to the east is a 3.5 dwelling units per acre.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments? Mr. Kemmling.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: So, the Comprehensive Plan has it currently low density and it’s staying at low density, so we’re not changing the Comprehensive Plan for this property?

MR. CHAFFEE: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: That’s what you were just saying, correct?

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: And the property is currently zoned residential suburban and agricultural. And the proposal is to change it to R-1.

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Can you compare and contrast R-1 to residential suburban?

MR. CHAFFEE: Well, it’s generally -- the minimums in R-1 would be 9,000 square feet per lot area. In residential suburban it would be 12,000 square feet. The preliminary plat that the Planning Commission also approved pending the rezoning, we worked with them, over 60 percent of the lots are 12,000 square feet or greater, and another 20 percent are 11,000 square feet or greater. So, the Comprehensive Plan alludes that, you know, west of K-7 Highway we’d like to see larger lots developed rather than on the eastern side. If you take a look over at Grey Oaks and you have lots 8,500 square feet in size. So, even less than, you know, what you’d see in R-1. And I think, you know, a little bit of the anomaly is that generally I think people think that because it’s a larger lot it means it’s going to be a larger house. And I think what you’ve seen in Grey Oaks and Crimson Ridge speaks differently to that situation. Just because something is zoned, planned single family or R-1 doesn’t mean that it’s going to be a smaller house that’s placed on the lot. In fact, when you look at the side yard setbacks that are required in an RS zoning district and side lot setbacks required in R-1 zoning district you can get the same size, same with the house on the lot.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: And what percentage of the 119 acres is already RS?

MR. CHAFFEE: All the 119 that they’re rezoning is RS. There’s about 21 acres up in the northeast corner of the proposed Canyon Lakes development that’s already been zone R-1 back when Farmington Hills came into play.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. I thought it said in the packet it was RS and agricultural. I thought the property was mixed between the two.

MR. CHAFFEE: Oh, I’m sorry. The agricultural is the small pieces down at the southern end that the developer picked up. Probably off the top of my head I’m going to guess maybe ten acres.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. So, of the 119 we’re talking about, ten acres is agricultural. The rest of it they could already build houses on because it’s RS as it is?

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Without any rezoning?

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other? Mr. Vaught?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And that’s another -- I was having a conversation with somebody trying to clear that confusion up. So, even if we pass the R-1, the R zoning is passed based on a planning that’s presented. So, if the developer -- the developer can’t get the R-1 and then totally obviously build a totally different plan. So, not necessarily the structure themselves, but the layout and the plat itself was filed, which then dictates. So, the zoning is passed based on that. So, if somebody wanted to dramatically change the overall look and feel of the neighborhood and do 30 more lots, they would have to come back in front of Planning and start all over, is that correct?

MR. CHAFFEE: They’d have to come back to the Planning Commission and do a revised preliminary plat. They wouldn’t have to rezone the property again.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No. Yeah. They have the zoning, but you’d would have to --

MR. CHAFFEE: You would have to --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Yeah. You’d have to revise and get that approved --

MR. CHAFFEE: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- and go through all that --

MR. CHAFFEE: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- and have a reason for it.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Okay. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item?

Public Comments:

MR. BORESOW: Actually I had a question for Paul if you don’t mind.

MAYOR DISTLER: If you could come to the microphone and speak your name and address for the record, please.

MR. BORESOW: Hi guys. Jerry Boresow, (Address Omitted). This is a question for Paul. Just on the -- he just mentioned that 60 percent is already for housing zoned Residential Suburban. From the Planning Commission’s notes, I’m just trying to figure out some of this, the addition. It says that there are 162 of the 281 single-family lots, which is 58 percent that exceed 12,000 square feet, which is the requirement in lot size for the RS zoning. And additional 54 lots are 11,000 feet or larger. Only 16 of the lots are between 9,000 and 10,000 square feet. Okay. So, if you add up 162, 54 and 16, I’m getting 232. So, where are the other 49 lots? Where? Do you guys follow that?

MR. CHAFFEE: There are lots [Inaudible; talking off mic] in the subdivision that aren’t being rezoned that are already zoned R-1 single family residential.

MR. BORESOW: And there’s 49 of those?

MR. CHAFFEE: That’s how my staff added them up.

MR. BORESOW: Forty-nine homes on 19 acres? Or what was the original that was zoned RS from Farmington Hills? That doesn’t seem like that many homes. I’m just having a problem with a few of these -- some of these numbers. Because I know, I just think that it’s more like 70 percent of the houses are really ready to go for residential suburban. And I just -- I don’t think -- I think if they want to do this rezoning, they take the 30 percent, rezone that R-1, and keep the other RS suburban, especially protecting the residents of Shawnee. I mean the people in Sylvan Creek because once this passed R-1, Mr. Prieb or any developer can come in and change that and forget the 14,000 square foot lots, whether they’re a nice house or a not nice house, it’s 14,000 square foot lots, and turn them all into 9,000 square foot lots. Add a whole bunch more homes to it and increase a lot more traffic which I’m sure the people are going to be talking -- I’d like to come back up and talk about traffic later. But anyway, I just had a problem with some of these numbers that was in the Planning Commission. It just didn’t add up to me. You know, but the fact is that close to 70 percent of these homes are ready to go into residential suburban. And I do like Mr. Prieb’s plan. But the problem is, it can be changed. And that’s the big issue, of course besides traffic. But anyway, that was it. I just had a question on these numbers. It didn’t add up. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. If you could sign your name and address on the form there, please. Any other comments from the audience? If you’d come forward. And please speak your name and address for the record.

MS. KING: I’m Becky King. I live at (Address Omitted). Our family built a home on our property more than 35 years ago. My father -- my husband and his father built the home. While they were living there they obviously traveled Clare Road quite often. And our home is at the top of a hill so that when you turn right you can’t see someone coming over the top of the hill or left. And if you’re turning left into our property, of course you can’t see someone coming over the top of the hill. My father-in-law looked and didn’t see anybody and he’s a very good driver. And never in my knowledge has had a speeding ticket or any problems at all. I’ve never seen him run a stop sign. He was looking for traffic and he’s so careful of a driver that the person on the other side of the hill didn’t see him either. He came over the hill and ran into my mother-in-law’s side of the car and it was a near fatal accident. Put them both in the hospital. Our road is barely wide enough for two cars to pass. The road is not flat. The road is not straight. There are blind spots all along Clare, especially at our place. We’ve lived there for ten years and it’s been scary for us when we moved in. My children were 12, 10, 9 and 6. It’s scary to drive across there much less walk or bicycle. There is many bicyclists on that road many times and I’m scared to pass them. And another time when we were living there my daughter was driving and she was turning, she was going south on Clare Road and turning east on 63rd Street and was run off the road. The driver never even stopped to see if she was okay and just took off. But it damaged her car. Fortunately she was okay. I would respectfully like you to consider to fix our road when you are talking about adding all these new properties that of course we don’t want anyway. Our home was originally built out there. And all of them to my knowledge were AG. And the people that lived out there wanted quiet and peace and plenty of room. And, in fact, everybody on the other side of the highway, on the other side of Clare has many acres. And you’re talking about putting duplexes on Clare and please consider this. Would you want duplexes 50 feet from your home? Would you want a roundabout down -- right on your own road? It is going to increase traffic. You’ve got to know that. So, I would like you to recognize that this is on public record now that should any more accidents happen on Clare Road, the county, the state and the city will know that someone is going to be held responsible. Thank you.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. If you could put your name and address on the form, please. Mr. Chaffee.

MR. CHAFFEE: I just wanted to clarify something on the previous question. The number of lots that are shown that exceed the 12,000 square feet and then the second number provided were the number of lots that exceeded 11,000, so between 11,000 and 12. The final number of the number of lots that are between 9,000 and 10,000 square feet, so the other lots are the 10,000 to 11,000 square feet in size.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you.

MR. CHAFFEE: I wanted to clarify that. And then secondly, any discussion on duplexes is premature. The Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on that next Monday night. So, they haven’t made any recommendation to the Governing Body regarding that rezoning request.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you very much. Any other comments from the audience? Okay. Seeing none -- oh, sorry.

MR. MARCH: Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Aaron March. I’m an attorney with the White Goss Law firm. And I’m here tonight representing Cary and Pam DeKamp who live on the west side of Clare Road across the street from this development. I’m sure you read the minutes from the Planning Commission. I appeared on behalf of the DeKamps at the Planning Commission not opposing or challenging the zoning, but asking some fundamental questions as to why there is a need to rezone since the majority of the lots could be developed under the existing zoning. But more importantly proceeding without having a current understanding of the traffic impacts on Clare Road. Mr. Prieb has been very gracious and we have met with him on a couple of occasions. The development is very impressive. The single-family development is very impressive. We’re not here today to object to his plan to move forward as has been submitted in the preliminary plat. It’s our hope that he fully builds the single-family development as shown on this plat. We just want you to know that if times become tough and things have to change that we will be back before you saying let’s not change the preliminary plat to allow for more smaller homes because it went forward on the down zoning from RS to R-1 based upon a vision and a plan of larger homes, mostly larger homes, mostly larger lots. And that’s the development that we’d like to see you hold him to going forward. So, we’re not here tonight opposing. We like him. We like his plan. And we hope he has tremendous success in making this happen on the schedule that he’s proposing. It is a seven-phased single-family development. We do have very, very serious safety concerns about Clare Road. Allowing this entire development to go forward without the City knowing what needs to be done and when it needs to be done on Clare Road kind of is counter to how you all have succeeded as city as reflected in the survey that came up before you tonight. You’re handling of traffic and planning issues is highly regarded in the metropolitan area. I think there’s a lot of time between Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4 to study Clare Road and to find a solution. It’ll be expensive. Nobody wants to do it. And I commend the developer for figuring out a way to do this project without you being in a position to say he has to fix it. He doesn’t want to fix Clare Road. It’s really, really expensive. We will be back before you not at the first phase final plat, maybe at the second, maybe at the third asking you to do that traffic study and fix Clare Road because it is dangerous today. Every one of these people that lives or is in the area on Clare Road today tells you it’s a problem. If one more car is added to Clare Road, is that going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back? No. Is three? Is forty? Is fifty? We don’t know. The traffic study will tell you what that distribution is and it needs to be fixed. And we will be back before you at the third or fourth final plat. We’ll be back before you should the next case proceed saying we need to know the answer now to do good planning for the City to solve the problem as you have done elsewhere. So, we truly hope for the best for Mr. Prieb and we ask that you do this the way you’ve done other developments so that you won’t need to see me at the second, third or fourth plat saying, what about the damage, what about the accidents, and you will have solved the problem for Clare Road. So, thank you very kindly.

MAYOR DISTLER: Thank you. Any other comments from the audience? Okay. I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Just before the motion --

MAYOR DISTLER: Yes.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- can we sit and talk about it a little bit?

MAYOR DISTLER: Uh-huh.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And I really appreciate those comments that were just made from the standpoint of -- and then Paul actually talked about this also that what we’re approving is based upon the preliminary plat. And it think that’s very important to me that we stick with the preliminary plat because if we start going back and changing that I think that’s kind of a violation -- not kind of, it is a violation of trust and their whole purpose for moving forward of this. So, I’m supportive of what we’re doing. But I’m supportive of doing it based on that plat. So, if they’re going to come in and change that plat I’m going to be looking at that very negatively. And I’ll just put that out there for public consumption.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And that would be my only comment. I’d move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to pass Ordinance No. 3183, Z-01-17-03, rezoning from Residential Suburban and Agricultural to Single Family Residential for Canyon Lakes located in the 23900-24700 Blocks of Clear Creek Parkway, subject to the conditions in the staff report. The motion carried 7-0.]

H. ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 7, 2017, CHAIRED BY COUNCILMEMBER KENIG

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is Items from the Council Committee Meeting of March 7, 2017, Chaired by Councilmember Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Thank you, Mayor. We have only two items tonight. First is Considering Approval of the Construction Manager at Risk Delivery Method for Construction of Fire Station 74. And the second is Considering Approval of the Design-Build Delivery Method for Flint Street, Street Improvement Project, from Johnson Drive to 62nd Terrace.

1. CONSIDER APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK DELIVERY METHOD FOR FIRE STATION 74.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay. On Item Number 1, to Consider Approving the Construction Manager At Risk Delivery Method for Fire Station 74. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I just have a comment. I just want to say that this -- the timing on this is what was just kind of brought to our attention on the need for this last week when we had a house in western Shawnee that basically burned to the ground. I mean there’s still a partial framework there. But, you know, this response time of this new fire station will cut that response on the house probably, I don’t know what the Fire Chief told me, at least five minutes, six minutes maybe. It could have been disastrous if the woman in the house wouldn’t have woke up, and she didn’t know why she did. But she wouldn’t have woken with the response -- too long of a response time. It could have been a very different situation in that house. So, this is -- I’m so happy to see this moving forward and finally getting this fire station out there. And I know that we’ve already been through that it’s kind of irrelevant to what we’re voting on here. But it does, you know, the awareness of this and the importance has definitely been brought to the forefront in that area.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve using the Construction Manager at Risk delivery method for Fire Station 74. The motion carried 7-0.]

2. CONSIDER APPROVING THE DESIGN-BUILD DELIVERY METHOD FOR THE FLINT STREET, JOHNSON DRIVE TO 62ND TERRACE, STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to Consider Approving the Design-Build Delivery method for the Flint Street, Johnson Drive to 62nd Terrace, Street Improvement Project. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that want to speak to this item? I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to approve the Design-Build Delivery Method for the Flint Street, Johnson Drive to 62nd Terrace, Street Improvement Project.
The motion carried 7-0.]

I. STAFF ITEMS

1. CONSIDER CONTRACT NO. 2017-0037, A REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13829 JOHNSON DRIVE.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item on the agenda is Staff Items. Item Number 1 is to Consider Contract No. 2017-0037, a Real Estate Agreement for the Purchase of Property Located at 13829 Johnson Drive. Parks staff and the City Attorney's Office have negotiated a purchase price of $173,500 for the property located at 13829 Johnson Drive immediately west of the Civic Centre. The recommended action is to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the real estate agreement. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Mr. Kemmling and then Mr. Jenkins.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Yeah. When we first discussed purchasing this property, I guess I missed some of these finer details. Reading the packet here, we are going to pay for it now, but they have the right to live in it until 2027?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: That’s the language in the agreement. They’ve also agreed if we need it sooner, then they would relocate. But we think that that’s way more than enough time.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We’ve done several of these in the past. I think this is the fourth time we’ve purchase property adjacent to a park, future park area or a future development area. And this is just the structure that we have used. And we found that ten-year window is a good window to put in the agreement.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Okay. I guess to me it seems odd that we’re paying for the house now and then they’re going to live in it essentially rent free until we decide we need it. I don’t know. To me that seems like an odd way to spend the money now and then they can live in it rent free. It seems like they’re getting free housing out of it for possibly for a decade. And then the other part that I see here is that we’re going to be spending $500 a year to mow the grass on this place that they’re living in for free.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I talked with Park Director Holman this morning. There is really just a strip of grass along the front and it’s immediately adjacent to the community center property. The rest of the lot is primary wooded and doesn’t require any kind of mowing and maintenance. The Johnsons are very elderly and so that was just part of the agreement that we made with them. If own it, then we would maintain that little front area for them.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Right. So, according to the packet we’re saying it’s 500 a year regardless of the size that’s our estimate. And we’re also saying that it’s their responsibility now when the own it, they’re responsible for the upkeep. But once we buy it, they can live on it for free and now they’re no longer responsible for maintaining their piece of property. I guess those are a couple things when we first talked about buying this piece of property. I didn’t realize that there would be stipulations that I don’t find to be the best use of the money or they don’t make a ton of sense to me, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Jenkins and then Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yes. Mr. Kemmling covered a couple of things I was concerned about. The other thing is when we -- we’re paying the full appraisal, not the full appraisal, I think it’s the county appraisal, is that correct? We’re using county appraisal numbers which generally run a little lower than what a licensed appraiser would have out there. But when I sat through the process when we were talking about purchasing this property, I didn’t realize we were going to pay for it and then let them live in it because it seems like that’s a value added for the residents that are in there now. And it seemed like that should have been part of the negotiation process and saying, hey, 173 is what the county appraisal is, but how about we offer you this because then we’re going to turn around and let you live there for up to ten more years. It seems like there should have been a little trade-off there because why would we pay full value for it if we’re letting them live in it. I mean that seems kind of strange. But maybe that’s just me, I don’t know.

MAYOR DISTLER: So, then are we also insuring it and everything? Are we insuring the home against fire and that type of stuff?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, yeah, they were actually [inaudible; talking off mic.]

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay.

MR. RAINEY: That’s correct. They are. But they are -- the only insurance that they were required to get was a policy to cover their belongings in the home. The contract was written by Neil in this manner because he thought it was the level of comfort that this particular couple needed when they came in and talked to him.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Right. And I understand we’re not really interested in the house itself anyway, we’re interested in the land.

MR. RAINEY: Right. Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, the house has kind of been consequential, it just happened to be sitting there. But the fact that we’re basically leasing it back to him for zero dollars for ten years. It seemed like there should have been some negotiation in that with the price that we’re paying up front.

MR. RAINEY: Yeah. And I can’t speak to that other than to say that this is a long-time relationship that Mr. Holman has had with these two. And they came to him and through his discussions with him when I first indicated that we go through that kind of a process he was very adamant that this was what this couple needed in order to be comfortable with transferring this property at this time. And I did meet with them the last time, and I can tell you they’re the two nicest people you’d ever meet in the world. And they both said if you guys need it earlier, just tell us and we’ll move. We’ll leave whenever you need us to leave. They’ve also -- they went ahead and cleaned out the large barn that they have on the property so that the Parks Department could store their mowers and items in their shed. Their shed being the Johnson’s property. And I think Neil just got used to using this process. He’s used it in the past. And we didn’t need the property and he wanted to acquire it now in order to avoid the possibility of someone else buying it in the future and putting some type of an improvement on it that we couldn’t move in order to expand that facility at a later date. The other item was the ten years. You know, that’s a very unlikely occurrence with this particular couple. I think they’re in their mid to late 80s. They don’t get around very well and they’re very concerned about being able to stay there very much longer at all.

MAYOR DISTLER: And so we -- I’m sorry, Mr. Vaught. And so we wouldn’t be responsible for the contents, but what is our liability if something happened to the home?

MR. RAINEY: No, I’m sorry. The way I wrote it up in particular is in the paragraph under Possession, Section 9. If anything happens to the home and it becomes uninhabitable for any reason there’s no obligation to rebuild the home or repair the home or restore the home in any manner. They just simply move out. And the other answer to your question was this right does not transfer to any other third party. They can’t convey it to someone. They can’t transfer it to their heirs. It’s just personal with the two of them. And I know from that meeting that I had with them they do not intend to occupy it if one of them is no longer there. They just don’t want to be there any longer.

MAYOR DISTLER: And we wouldn’t be responsible for relocation expenses or anything like that?

MR. RAINEY: No, nothing. Nothing.

MAYOR DISTLER: Okay.

MR. RAINEY: I wrote that up pretty firmly and there’s a provision in there, too, that says that they will indemnify us and hold us harmless and reimburse us for any costs we may incur as a result of their having occupied the property. It’s a -- I put everything possible I could put in there that Neil was comfortable with with this particular couple. I think he just had a long-term personal relationship with these two and this is what he felt he needed to do to get them to be comfortable selling the property at this time. And I know he was definitely concerned about them passing it to a third party who may have other plans for it. And that was a big factor in his decision.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Vaught.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And I’d just say, you know, from a real estate perspective it’s not an incredibly unusual thing to do when you have -- when you’re trying to control a property next to something that you own as -- and there’s a word for it. As a licensed real estate broker I should know it. It’s called deed in lieu of something or -- no, that’s not it. It’s a deed in --

MR. RAINEY: A deed in trust I think is --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That could be it. Where you basically buy the house and give them the right to occupy it. And if you go out to Basehor and everybody knows where the Orscheln is there at 155th and State there was a pink house. I don’t know if it’s still there. There was a pink house that sat in the middle of that development. They did the same thing with her. They developed around her for ten years and she had the same thing. They owned it, but she had the right to live there until she no longer was able or passed away. The big thing with these is when you have an older couple what you don’t want to have happen is kind of a catastrophic event where now the family owns it and you no longer have the ability to go in and accomplish what you want to accomplish. And so I agree. I don’t think we’re looking at ten years. I think it would be kind of rare. And chances are we’re not going to be in a position to do anything in the next ten years. We’ll probably be spending money on other things first. But it’s not an unusual move. And I know what your concern is, Mike. And when you look at it on the surface it does look that way. But it’s done -- actually done quite often in real -- and I’m trying to do it on a building right now just so I can control it, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Mr. Kenig.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. So, Ellis and Carol, if you can just clarify. So, the ten-year time frame, is that City best practice when it comes to these types of acquisitions in general? Or was that something you needed to the agreement with this couple just so I understand it?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: I believe we’ve done that same thing on the three previous ones. We did one at Listowel Park many, many years ago with Mrs. Bergman. And then the Mackie House next to Erfurt. And then the Devoy property next to the community center property.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: So, it’s traditionally the way we’ve structured those agreements. All three of those have worked well, so.

MAYOR DISTLER: Any other questions or comments from the Council? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS NEIGHBOR, JENKINS, VAUGHT, MEYER, SANDIFER, KENIG: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay.

COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Nay.

MAYOR DISTLER: Motion passes. Mr. Kemmling voting in dissent
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to authorize the Mayor to sign the Real Estate Agreement with Albert and Edith Johnson for the purchase of property located at 13829 Johnson Drive in the amount of $173,500. The motion carried 6-1 with Councilmember Kemmling voting no.]

2. CONSIDER THE PURCHASE OF OUTDOOR WARNING SIRENS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 2 is to consider the Purchase of Outdoor Warning Sirens for the Fire Department. The Fire Department has a multi-year replacement program for outdoor warning sirens. Staff is recommending piggy-backing on the Mid America Regional Council's contract with Blue Valley Public Safety for two siren replacements in the total amount of $52,360.40. The recommended action is to approve the purchase. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience want to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kenig and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to approve the purchase two outdoor warning sirens from Blue Valley Public Safety in the amount of $52,360.40. The motion carried 7-0.]

3. CONSIDER THE PURCHASE OF BUNKER GEAR FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to consider the Purchase of Bunker Gear for the Fire Department. The Fire Department ranks and evaluates options for purchasing new bunker gear. They are recommending piggy-backing on the City of Olathe's contract with Jerry Ingram Fire and Rescue for 22 sets of Bunker Gear in the total amount of $51,002.16. The recommended action is to approve the purchase. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience want to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Meyer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve the purchase of 22 sets of Bunker Gear from Jerry Ingram Fire and Rescue in the amount of $51,002.16. The motion carried 7-0.]

4. CONSIDER APPROVING FINAL PLANS FOR THE 73RD AND MARTINDALE STREET IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THE RAILROAD QUIET ZONE PROJECT, P.N. 3429.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 4 is to Consider Approving Final Plans for the 73rd and Martindale Street Improvements Related to the Railroad Quiet Zone Project, P.N. 3429. This project is on the City's Capital Improvement Program. Final plans are now complete. The total budget is $736,500 and is funded through the Economic Development Fund. The recommended action is to approve the Final Plans and authorize staff to advertise the project for bid. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I’ll accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Kenig and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to approve the Final Plans for the 73rd and Martindale Street Improvements related to the Railroad Quiet Zone Project, P.N. 3429, and authorize staff to advertise the project for bids. The motion carried 7-0.]

5. CONSIDER APPROVING FINAL PLANS FOR THE JOHNSON DRIVE AND MUND ROAD, STORMWATER PIPE REPAIR PROJECT, P.N. 3426.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 5 is to Consider Approving Final Plans for the Johnson Drive and Mund Road, Stormwater Pipe Repair Project, P.N. 3426. This project is on the City's Capital Improvement Program. Final plans are now complete. The total budget is $788,000 and is funded through the Stormwater Utility Fund. The recommended action is to approve the Final Plans and authorize staff to advertise the project for bid. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move for approval.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to approve the Final Plans for the Johnson Drive and Mund Road, Stormwater Pipe Repair Project, P.N. 3426, and authorize staff to advertise the project for bids. The motion carried 7-0.]

6. CONSIDER APPROVING FINAL PLANS FOR THE 2017 PARKING LOT LIGHTS REPLACEMENT PROJECT.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 6 is to Consider Approving Final Plans for the 2017 Parking Lot Lights Replacement Project. Based on recent inspections, the parking lot lights at the Civic Centre, Fire Station 71, and Fire Station 73 are in need of replacement. Final plans are now complete. The total budget is $135,000 and is funded through the Equipment and Facility Reserve Fund. The recommended action is to approve the Final Plans and authorize staff to advertise the project for bid. Is there anyone on the Council have any questions or comments? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Vaught to approve the Final Plans for the 2017 Parking Lot Lights Replacement Project and authorize staff to advertise the project for bids.
The motion carried 7-0.]

7. CONSIDER BIDS AND CONTRACT NO. 2017-0038 FOR THE 2017 CIVIC CENTRE GYM ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 7 is to Consider Bids and Contract No. 2017-0038 for the 2017 Civic Centre Gym Roof Replacement Project. Final plans were approved by the Governing Body on February 27, 2017. Bids were received from eleven contractors. Staff recommends awarding the contract to JR and Company Roofing Contractors in the amount of $88,883. The recommended action is to award the bid and approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to approve.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Neighbor to authorize the Mayor to sign a contact with JR and Company Roofing Contractors for the 2017 Civic Centre Gym Roof Replacement Project in the amount of $88,883. The motion carried 7-0.]

J. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

1. RATIFY SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR MARCH 27, 2017, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,850,598.42.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next item is Miscellaneous Items. Item Number 1 is to Ratify Semi-Monthly Claim for March 27, 2017, in the Amount of $3,850,598.42. Does anyone on the Council have any questions? Anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will accept a motion.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Move for approval.

MAYOR KENIG: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Meyer and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to ratify the semi-monthly claim for March 27, 2017, in the amount of $3,850,598.42. The motion carried 7-0.]

2. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item 2 is Miscellaneous Council Items. Does anyone on the Council have an item they would like to discuss? Seeing none.

3. CONDUCT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THOSE ACQUISITION DISCUSSION.

MAYOR DISTLER: Item Number 3 is to conduct an Executive Session for the purpose of discussing the acquisition of property for the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of those acquisition discussions.

(a) Recess to Executive Session for 15 minutes for preliminary discussions relating to the acquisition of real property for the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of those acquisition discussions. At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the meeting will resume in the City Council Chambers.

I will accept a motion to recess to Executive Session for 15 minutes for preliminary discussions relating to the acquisition of real property for the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of those acquisition discussions. At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the meeting will resume the City Council chambers. Do I have a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Motion to recess to Executive Session for 15 minutes.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Twenty minutes.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Fifteen.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Oh, 15 minutes. I’m sorry.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Pay attention.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Were you here?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No, I really wasn’t. It’s late.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Glad you didn’t make the motion. I’ll second that.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Sandifer and seconded by Councilmember Meyer to recess into Executive Session for 15 minutes for preliminary discussions relating to the acquisition of real property for the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of those acquisition discussions. At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the meeting will resume the City Council chambers. The motion carried 7-0.]
(Shawnee City Council in Executive Session from 8:45 p.m. to 9:02 p.m.)

(b) Conclude Executive Session.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next action is to conclude the Executive Session. Do I have a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: So moved.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Neighbor and seconded by Councilmember Jenkins to conclude the Executive Session. The motion carried 7-0.]

(c) Reconvene Meeting.

MAYOR DISTLER: The next action is to reconvene the meeting. Do I have a motion?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Moved to reconvene.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to reconvene the meeting. The motion carried 7-0.]

K. ADJOURNMENT

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Move to adjourn.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Second.

MAYOR DISTLER: A motion has been made and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.

COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.

MAYOR DISTLER: Opposed nay. Motion passes. We are adjourned.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Vaught and seconded by Councilmember Kenig to adjourn. The motion carried 7-0.]

(Shawnee City Council Meeting Adjourned at 9:05 p.m.)


CERTIFICATE

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

/das April 4, 2017

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_______________________

Stephen Powell, City Clerk










File Attachment Icon
CC03272017.docx